Re: [bcn2004] Dialog with K. Loganathan Part-1: About some words from "Avesta"

Dear Dr. K. Loganathan,

Thank you for your response.   You said: 
"But meanwhile let me mention that it is very unlikely that the Sumerians were Turkish people for they described themselves as "black people" the 'sag gi-ga' that occurs in many places." 

To this I say that you are mistaken.  Below you will find the picture of a portion of what is called "The Sumerian Standard of UR". On the complete artifact there are many more similar Sumerians shown than we see on this picture.  When we examine this colorful picture we find that Sumerians were totally "white" people.  There is no "blackness" about them except that their "hair" was "black". Many sources on Sumerians report that they were "black headed" or "black-haired" people meaning that they had "DARK HAIR on their head".  This information is found in many sources and there are hundreds of them on the internet. Turanian Tur/Turk peoples are known to be "dark haired" people with a white complexion.  As for the term "SAG GI-GA", I am inclined to believe the depictions of Sumerian peoples as shown on the Sumerian Standard of UR rather than the term "sag gi-ga". As I said in my previous writing, I have many doubts about the correct and truthful presentation of the "Sumerian" texts as have been presented to us. But, as they say, pictures speak louder than words. Here we have part of the Standard of Ur. 


You can also visit some other URLs such as:

Additionally below is given a citing from the URL address  of 
< > which gives us the following:


The term "Sumerian" is actually an exonym (a name given by another group of people), first applied by the Akkadians. The Sumerians described themselves as "the black-headed people" (sag-gi-ga) and called their land Ki-en-gi, "place of the civilized lords". The Akkadian word Shumer possibly represents this name in dialect. The Sumerians, with a language, culture, and, perhaps, appearance different from their Semitic neighbors and successors are widely believed to have been invaders or migrants, although it has proven difficult to determine exactly when this event occurred or the original geographic origins of the Sumerians."

Polat Kaya: People who are "black" by nature are called "black people", not "black-headed" people.  "Black-headedness" can only mean only thing, and that is having "black hair" on their head. You will find many internet sites identifying Sumerians as "black-haired" people. 

Labelling Sumerians as 
"people related to the Africans and most probably the Ethiopeans" can only be seen as a distortion of known facts about the Sumerians.  As you noted above, the Sumerian Standard of UR speaks differently.  I get the feeling that such mistaken interpretations are another attempt to distance these ancient Sumerians from their Turanian Tur/Turk kins.  

As for the darker skin of Tamils and other Dravidian peoples, that is, if they were Turanians to start with and I think they were, it is quite natural for Turanian peoples who moved into an equatorial geographical zone some thousands of years ago, to acquire a darker complexion.  Nature provides the dark pigment under the skin of such people who live in such geographical zones to overcome the ill effects of the ultraviolet rays of the Sun. It is a self protection mechanism of the body.   

As for your other questions, I have said it before and I will say it again.  The so-called name "GILGAMESH", which is the earliest known epic of man dating back to probably seven + thousand years, was originally "BILGAMESH" which is a Turkish word. Evidently, it has been suppressed as many other obvious Turkish words were - such as TUR.  The name BILGAMESH (GILGAMESH) antedates not only the words of Avesta language but also many other Aryan and Semitic words.  In fact even the name "GILGAMESH" is Turkish except that the vowel "A" in the front has been dropped.  With the missing vowel reinserted, the name becomes "AGILGAMESH" (AKILGAMESH) which is another Turkish expression equivalent to "BILGAMESH" both having the same or similar meaning. Thus when all of these word alterations were taking place in the Middle East, the Turkish language was the widely used and dominantly spoken language in the area.

Best wishes to you and to all,

Polat Kaya

K. Loganathan wrote:

Dear Polat Kaya


Thank-you and I am looking forward to further posts on this dialog. But meanwhile let me mention that it is very unlikely that the Sumerians were Turkish people for they described themselves as "black people" the 'sag gi-ga' that occurs in many places. This shows that they were certainly not the Europeans or Mongloids but people related to the Africans and most probably the Ethiopeans. To this day the Dravidians in India remain dark with striking identity in appearance to the Ethiopens. Many South Indian can easlity be taken for Ethiopeans.


Now in your futher posts I will also appreciate original references to actual Texts and with a possible date for them. Even though Sumerian languages existed in the Middle East till around the 500 BC or so, most of the texts I use are from the 3rd millennium BC with reasonably well dated by the Archeologists who dug up the clay tablets.


As I have said before whatever the prehistory of Sumerian, from about 3000 BC where written texts are available, we can see that Sumerian is Archaic Tamil for reasons I have already given. I can give more evidences in this direction if required.


Now this does not deny the possiblity that there is Turkish substratum underlying the Language of Avesta and so forth. However since these texts are dated around 1500 BC or so, you have to show how the words are actually Turkish by citing texts in Turkish that are earlier than Avesta.


I shall show later  that some of these words go back to Sumerian roots and which might have entered the Avestan through the cuneiform script they borrowed.


Any way I thank you for taking so much pain to create this dialog in which I will certainly participate.



Polat Kaya <tntr@...> wrote: